The text has intention to show way of practical usage of M hypothesis heritage.
This should be also a proof that M hypothesis is correct one instead of N hypothesis.
We also should keep in mind that N hypothesis offers much more advance devices because it deals with one-end forces.
N hypothesis offers possibilities of perpetuum-mobile, propulsion without reaction, one end force, etc.
However, nobody built such device till now although it has been officially accepted theory of
electromagnetism for last two centuries.
The N hypothesis theory led us to theory of relativity, the most spectacular theory in contemporary theory and the first Einstein postulate is based on Faradays description of homopolar engine.

DC MACHINES CONTRUCTED IN REGARDS WITH M HYPOTHESIS

N hypothesis seriously violates laws of energy and angular momentum conservations. This is obvious in the following device:

Fig. 1

The device does not have stator and consequently it does not have prop for a rotor.
So, in regards with N hypothesis there is a force with only one end.
And this directly violates law of angular conservation and also the law energy conservation.
Regarding presumption given by Andrija Radović and Guala Jorge Valverde that influence of
velocity of generated potential in homopolar generator is canceled by opposite influence of outer
part of electric circuit. Gaula Jorge Valverde formalized this presumption by appropriate mathematical derivation.
But, we are able to construct device with confined magnetic field that prevents exposition of outer part of
electric circuit to magnetic field. In the case we should have only direct action of a magnet to a rod and reaction
of a rod to a magnet as it is shown on the following picture:

Fig. 2

Only part CAB of electric circuit is exposed to confined magnetic,
but only part AB on a rod is able to produce angular force momentum of a rigid electric contour.
Contour is able to perform limited rotation around CA axe.
When the contour is fixed then C permanent magnet should attempt to rotate in contra direction in
regards with reaction of probe to magnet. This should be an ultimate proof that M hypothesis is valid
one and that Faraday failed because he did not use confined magnetic field.
Further development of above machine leads us to the following device (proposed by Andrija Radović):

Fig. 3

There is a magnetic section able to free rotate around
CA direction. N pole's magnetic lines are captured and confined by the
rest of magnet and its S pole acts to a rod on its part AB. Consequently
rod also reactively acts to the magnet and should cause its rotation.
Now, we can optimize upper device by multiplication of electric
circuit's contour on the following way:

Fig. 4

In case of a permanent magnet left coil is unnecessary
and right one is actually multiplied rod from previous motor. By the
multiplication we can reduce magnitude of electric current needed to
drive the motor multiplying the reactive influence of a rods to
permanent magnet that is shaped as gear. Additional gear is not a
magnet and its role is only to transmit rotation outside the device.
The device has one extraordinary advantage over others DC motors because
it uses constant electric current and it does not have brushes. There is
no inductive resistance that occurs in ordinary DC machines because
commutator, i.e. brushes changes direction of DC current in the rotor's
coil. Such AC current has inductive resistance in the coil and this
limits the upper speed of the device. The motor from above picture does
not have such limitation and its angular speed is limited by driving
potential only.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

On unhappy above device does not work although demonstrative device from fig. 2 works just as it has been expected
– it produces declination of massive C magnet. We are now waiting
on independent experimental results of repeated experiment from
other independent laboratory because these results are contradictory.
The final text explaining phenomena experienced by exposed devices will
be written by Andrija Radovic´ and Jorge Guala Valverde when results
of repeated experiments by another independent laboratory is received.